Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Atheist vs. Theist

MichaelMcF vs Luminon

Posted on: August 11, 2009 - 4:40am
MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF vs Luminon

Hello folks!

 

As I'm tired of dealing with some of the nonsense Big Science(TM) crap that gets espoused by Luminon, and that constantly derails threads, I thought I'd set somewhere up that we could "discuss" things without trampling all over other people's conversations.

The first part of this will be a continuing response to some of the crazy being thrown about in inspectormustards tin foil hat thread.  I hope then to continue the conversation we were having in the visions in the form of dreams thread, which I have only not responded to because I honestly grew weary of the bullshit.

 

So there you have it Luminon.  I'm happy to respond to everything you've got here and we can leave the other threads in peace.  What do you say?

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss

‹ Brain Scientist, Stroke, and Spiritual Enlightenment Theism and behavioural apologetics. ›

Posted on: August 11, 2009 - 5:54am #1
MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ok, so first things first:

 Ok, so first things first: the tin foil hat thread.

 

 

Luminon wrote:

Wow, you remind me of some teachers. So the neutrinos were really found, (though my sources are doubtful about the quality of experiments) and---

Mysterious sources.  Name them.  Provide links and credentials or keep them out the conversation.

 

On my side there are several nobel laureates and 4 decades worth of research.  Let's see how they stack up against your "sources".


Luminon wrote:

 ---were found to actually have a mass. Which even more diminishes the already small family of massless particles. Only gluons and photons now remain. As far as I know, neither have any mass-giving properties. (except in e. theory) There are two questions now - if Higgs boson does have a mass, how does it have a mass? 

I don't really know why you're connecting the Higgs to discussion to neutrinos, other than you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The Higgs Boson is but one component of a theoretical Higgs field.  It is the non-zero vacuum expectation value of this field that allows the mechanism gives things mass - including the Higgs Boson.  This is easy information to find.  If we discover the Higgs then it confirms much of the standard model, if we don't discover the Higgs then it leaves a gap in our understanding that will either be found later or filled with a better model.
 

 

Luminon wrote:

I meant it differently. Did you ever realize, that there are alternative hypotheses? How do you know that the hypotheses being tested are the only worthy ones? The electric sun hypothesis is an example.

We don't.  That's why scientists aren't all looking at the same models and hypotheses.  Just ask the guys looking at the Top Quark model as a way of explaining a Higgsless universe.  Alternate theories are investigated and tested constantly.  Those which attract the most attention are those which have been shown to have the strongest evidence for them.  It doesn't mean that they are true but if 90% of the expectations of a theory have been met then it makes sense for you to go looking for the other 10%.

We never know a hypotheses is worthless until it has been thorougly tested.

 

I'm going to read up on this electric sun theory.

 

Luminon wrote:

I have seen that alternative medicine works. Nothing, perhaps except of a big stone, can erase that from my memory. 
As for the placebo effect, it doubtlessly exists. Strictly speaking, placebo effect may be described as a positive affection of nerve, endocrine and immunity systems.  And if the alternative medicine has a power to produce it's beneficial presence regardless of psychologic factors, then it fuckin' works.

I'm sorry but no it doesn't.  Something triggering the placebo effect does not count it working as a medicine.  All medicines and treatments trigger the placebo effect.  Medicines that work give an effect way above and beyond what you see with a placebo.

Hell, we're still not entirely sure whether the placebo has a clinically significant effect.  So in essence you could be arguing that alternative medicines have an effect that is purely non-clinical.  Woot.

 

Luminon wrote:

This is of course not everything. I have done a personal tests by myself, like comparison of a laboratory blood test to testing by EAV device. Guess what? EAV was much more precise, immediate, and cheaper. I have seen my allergic reaction (swollen eye) to cease within a minute after a few acupuncture needles was placed around it.

What is an EAV device?  How do you know this device was better than a laboratory test?  Who carried out the test?  Who performed the diagnosis?

 

I'm very glad your swollen eye went down, but without knowing all the other factors involved there's no way to know that it was due to acupuncture.  Acupuncture is an odd animal as it is - while it is slowly being accepted in some "western" colleges there is still great debate about whether it has any real effect.

I am willing to listen when it comes to acupuncutre because there is at least some direct interaction with the body/nerves/muscles using  the needles.  I don't understand the mechanism so I'm not fully prepared to comment.  If it is shown to work (which it hasn't been really) then it will be incorporated under medicine.

What I think of when people mention alternative medicines (which is how we got onto this) are things like homeopathy, crystal treatments and aromatherapy.  Things which we know to be complete horse-shit.  I missed out herbal therapies and the like because we know that as pharmacology.

 

Luminon wrote:

And many other things. I can be wrong in my assumptions, but not in my observations, these are confirmed by tenths and hundreds of my fellow users of alternative medicine. I have seen so much of evidence for the alternative medicine, that there is the only logical conclusion. Something is wrong with the tests. I have no idea what, I just make a logical assumption.

Except that's not the only logical conclusion.  You've seen lots of things with no understanding of what's going on.  Could a positive effect be caused by something else?  Is there an unknown you're not considering?  These questions and more are answered by rigorous clinical testing.

If something doesn't come to the answer you wanted or weren't expecting, it doesn't mean the test is wrong.  It means you might be.  If you want to prove otherwise then come up with another un-biased test that you think fixes the flaws in the first one.

 

Luminon wrote:

Where is the scientific evidence you mentioned? I'll tell you, it is somewhere far away in a place I've never seen, made by people I've never heard of, with use of complex machinery which I don't understand. I can only believe it is there. So your whole arrogance is based on something you can't prove. This is a fundamental philosophic problem with contemporary science. I know, it is very impertinent to say that, but it is true. The technology we use every day is a product of engineering and does not have much in common with theoretical physics, it works even with mere basic models of atom. The top science became non-transparent and therefore suspicious to outsiders. It is accused of being sometimes in dissent with common sense. There are alternative hypotheses about the universe, easier to be understood by common sense. Thus, they are potentially much more likely to be succesful among people(!)

That's your defense?  I've not seen it so it might not be true?   Unfortunately for you, in the world of grown-ups, things don't work like that.  A theory is not found to be true because it is popular or everyone understands it or everyone has the resources to perform it.  Hell if popular theories were the ones we had to follow then how would knowledge ever move forward? (If you're looking for the quick answer - it wouldn't).

 

Also, just because something is non-intuitive doesn't mean it isn't true.  And a lot of the theories you're alluding to haven't been proven yet - but they have solid groundings in mathematics and they do well to explain the things we see.  Science is all about trying to find ouf if they're true.  If we'd proven all these theories we'd be talking about something else.

 

Luminon wrote:

Therefore, you should take a realistic approach when dealing with alternative opinions. The wonders of science have brought you into a historically unique social situation, where you can't prove anything, just like the other side, because the other side is on the other side of the planet.

Seriously?  We can't prove anything because we're miles apart from each other?  Are you high?  I can cross the globe in a day.  The claims made by scientists on the other side of this globe are published so that they can be repeated elsewhere.  What the hell does our position on the globe have to do with anything?

 

Luminon wrote:

This technological wonder has a small glitch - it lets only claims through. Whatever you claim, is a claim. Therefore, you should understand that there is a danger of position warfare, if we won't take each other's claims seriously. Stop presuming, that your authority will do the job for you. This machine lets only claims through.

And by this technological wonder I presume you mean the internet.  Yes, you and I can only converse by claims made.  BUT I can point you to papers and writings that can, have and will be tested many thousands of times by people all over the globe.  The bases of these theories are tested thousands of times a day in schools and teaching labs in Universities.  My claims actually have some weight of evidence behind them, even if I can't show it to you straight away.

Claims get taken seriously if there is some way to test or prove them.  Unfortunately for you your claims all float in some esoteric void that is vague and beyond description.  You never provide any serious way of testing your thoughts, nor can you even begin to give a descent mechanism of how they work.  Men all over the world have given them serious consderation and found them wanting.

 

Luminon wrote:

Only a mutual respect will ensure that the message will be more than a mere claim. And the respect must be earned. I don't say that I'm good at earning respect, but you're not even trying, quite oppositely, you know, all the fuck words and so on. Take it easy. There are millions of people being killed and you can still sleep, so why don't you take it easy as well? Remember, you represent the Science! This isn't a Holy Inquisition and judgement of heretics - or I guess you want it to look like it isn't.

Aw, did poor widdle Luminon get upset at the bad man swearing?  

Tell you what.  I'll calm down and start respecting your claims when you stop acting as if every dissenting opinion against yours is somehow part of an establishment effort to keep you down.

I'll start respecting your opinions when you stop making excuses for the prophecies of your beliefs that never happen.

I'll start respecting your opinions when you stand up and admit you might be wrong.

 

And before you say I need to admit I'm wrong.  I have done.  Many times on these boards as a matter of fact.  Unfortunately for you most of the claims I'm trying to defend have a weight of evidence behind them.  All you've ever provided is conjecture and anecdote.  Bear that in mind the next time you have the gall to claim that there is some sort of truth being hidden.

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss